Being Non-Being
OPPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS PART FOUR
15. Merger of the Poles of the Image Axis in Reflective Capacity
Any consideration of the term “consciousness” as used herein must bear in mind that consciousness is a structure, a form for understanding something. To “see” the workings of an economy or the organization of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements means to “understand”
these workings and organizations; it does not mean to “see” them in some physical sense.
The concepts of ontology and epistemology as used herein associate a level of
“conscious” behavior with the international economy, the history of Europe, the economic development of the United States and the functioning of the judicial branch of the United States.
These levels of “consciousness” build upon the game-playing psychology of Gin Rummy and they repeat the underlying structure which was discovered in this simple two-handed card game.
By expanding the search for “consciousness” to these broader levels, a scheme for consciousness at all possible levels is presented. This structure is found in the non-living as well as living levels of the reality around us.
In order to develop this understanding of consciousness, the underlying concepts of
“ontology” and “epistemology” must be expanded to include levels of consciousness which are not solely connected to the solitary human perception.
Our Third Axiom, the Principle of Consciousness, states: “Consciousness is always Consciousness OF something.” This Axiom has been personified by the introduction of an
“Image Axis.” This Axis represents the opposition between the nature of the thing as it exists (ontologic nature), and the understanding of that thing (epistemologic understanding).
Prior to the introduction of the Principle of Consciousness, two other axes already existed in this system. The First Axiom, the Principle of Non-Contradiction states: “A thing can not be and not-be at the same time in the same way.” The Second Axiom, the Principle of Contradiction states: “A thing which exists must have an opposite which also exists”)
Unlike these first two axioms, the Principle of Consciousness does not separate reality into irresolvable halves or oppositions. Rather, it forces a joinder, an inviolable unity, between
“Consciousness” and the “Something” of which consciousness is conscious.
This understanding of ontology and epistemology is perhaps a bit different. As I tried to describe these ideas to a friend of mine, Thad Suits, the following conversation was helpful.
Thad: I don’t understand how the epistemologic existence of something has anything to do with the ontologic reality of that thing. Just because I know that there is a quasar out there doesn’t affect the quasar.
Thad: Sure!
Scott: How can it be? Before it was an unknown quasar. Now, it’s a known quasar. Those are two different things, ontologically speaking.
Thad: That’s absurd! The ontologic existence of the quasar hasn’t changed at all! My perception of the quasar has perhaps changed. My understanding of the quasar has perhaps changed. But the ontologic existence of the quasar itself has not changed a bit.
Scott: If the quasar is now known to you, when before it was not known to you at all, then it seems to me that this single change has affected the ontologic existence of the quasar. It is not the same quasar as before.
Thad: I guess I just don’t buy that.
Scott: Let’s imagine the continent of South America before the voyages of Columbus. Prior to the discovery of South America stemming from Columbus’ voyages, South America was unknown to Europeans. After the first European sets foot on South America, is it the same South America? Is the South America, post-European invasion, the same South America pre-European invasion?
Thad: No, of course not. These are different South Americas.
But the difference stems from a whole invasion of the continent, not from the knowledge of a single person.
Scott: But that invasion would not have been possible without the first discovery of a single European who goes back to Europe and starts the invasion. Therefore, once the epistemologic understanding of a single person has changed, the ontologic reality of the thing changes with it.
Thad: That seems just too far out to me. It seems too extreme.
Scott: Well, let’s try another example. Right now we are sitting in the Morning Light Café in Great Falls, Montana. I am sitting on a typical restaurant chair. I can’t actually see this chair without moving around to look at it, but I assume that this chair is exactly like the chair that is next to me on my right facing you. I also assume that you are sitting on a similar chair and that this
Scott: Now from where I am sitting there is a chair possibly behind you, facing the table behind you, but I can’t tell. Your torso is blocking my view of that chair, so I don’t really know if there is a chair behind you or not, and without turning around you can’t see the chair either. But really, just given the position of our bodies in the room, there might not be a chair behind you at all. Still ok?
Thad: I can buy this so far.
Scott: Now right now we are in a ground breaking philosophic discussion about the relationship between ontology and epistemology. And we are discussing a chair which may be, but we don’t know, directly behind you. In other words, if there is a chair behind you, then it has a particular ontology. On the other hand, if there is no chair behind you, then it can not have an ontology at all, because it doesn’t exist. So far, so good?
Thad: I guess.
Scott: Now let’s imagine that there is a chair behind you, and sure enough, that is THE CHAIR which Thad Suits and Scott Albers were referring to in this ground-breaking discussion of the relationship between ontology and epistemology. That is THE CHAIR. THE FAMOUS CHAIR. For the next one thousand years people will want to see that chair, visit the museum which houses that chair, etc. etc. That chair will be as famous as anything that Plato ever mentioned or that Descartes ever thought about. If, of course, it actually does exist. At the present time, I don’t even know if there is a chair there or not, because you are blocking my view. And you can’t tell me without turning around, which you are not doing yet.
That: Go on.
Scott: Think of it. If there actually is a chair there, we could take that chair, initial it, send it to Sotheby’s for auction and we’d both be rich! We could get a million dollars for that chair because that is THE CHAIR!
Thad: OK.
Scott: If there is a chair there, would our knowledge of the existence of that chair change the chair? Would our epistemologic awareness of
Scott: Think of it. Right now we don’t even know that there’s a chair behind you. So just knowing that the chair exists gives us the beginnings of an epistemology of the chair. Once we go beyond the simple existence of the chair to our mutual knowledge of the chair, we now have a million dollar museum piece which we can both cash in on.
Thad: If there is a chair there at all.
Scott: Right. We could both take magic markers, sign the chair, and then send it to Sotheby’s for auction. Before it was just a regular old chair.
Now it is THE CHAIR, THE CHAIR THAT ACTUALLY EXISTED. If, of course, there is a chair there in the first place.
Thad: So our knowledge of the chair would change the chair itself.
Scott: That’s my point. The ontologic existence of something is changed by an epistemologic awareness of the thing, and this change in the ontology of the thing is subject to further changes in epistemology. In essence, the relationship between ontology and epistemology is a circuit. The Image Axis is the foundation of that circuit.
Thad: I can see your point, but I think you need to cover it in an additional essay.
Waitress: You’re going to have to move now. I’m cleaning up the room. Please take your things to the next room.
Scott, Thad: Sure, no problem.
(As Thad and Scott change tables)
Thad: There IS a chair there! The chair actually DOES exist!
In this essay, the possibility of a connection or harmony between mind and matter has been made through a “Circuit of Being” and an equally necessary “Circuit of Non-Being.”
These circuits arise from the basic terms of any level of reality studied.
As a “Circuit of Being” and “Circuit of Non-Being” join the elements necessary to sustain the ontologic nature and epistemologic understanding of any self, a mirror reflection is created wherein the ontologic reality of the object contrasts directly with the epistemologic reality of that object. If the unit “1” represents the “Ontologic Nature” of any self, we have:
1
Let us oppose the “Ontologic Nature” of any object with the “Epistemologic Understanding” of that same object. Because these two concepts of “Ontology” and
“Epistemology” are intended to mirror one another – i.e. “object” and “understanding of that object” - we may give a second unit “1” to represent the Epistemologic Understanding of that object. (I use capitals to emphasize the formal placement of these ideas in the Image Axis.)
1
1
The “Image Axis,” standing as a vertical line above the standard cross, represents an absolute equivalence between the object which “IS” (ontologic nature) and the object which “IS IN MY MIND” (epistemologic understanding). However, once an object is “known,” the object itself becomes –no longer simply “an object,” but rather –“a known object.” This addition of an Epistemologic Understanding of an underlying Ontologic Nature may be represented as the addition of both the “ontologic 1” and the “epistemologic 1” in a new ontologic unity, 1 + 1 = 2, i.e. “a known object.”
1 + 1 = 2
1
On the other hand, once the Ontologic Nature of an object has had added to it an Epistemologic Understanding of that object, a new understanding of the now “known object”
must occur as well. This might be represented as “2 + 1 = 3” where the “2” represents a “known object” and the “1” represents the prior Epistemologic Understanding of the object which has now changed. This process begins an infinite progression as these opposites reflect one another.
2
2 + 1 = 3
Once this new Epistemologic Understanding has been achieved, the object is now
“known” in a new and more complete manner, which again changes its Ontologic Nature. This new Ontologic Nature might be represented as the equation “2 + 3 = 5” where the “2” represents the former Ontologic Nature, the “3” represents the new Epistemologic Understanding of that object, for a new Ontologic Nature of “5.” This process may continue infinitely. At every new addition, the Ontologic Nature of a thing is reflected by a new Epistemologic Understanding, which in turn alters the Ontologic Nature of the thing, which again forces a revision of our Epistemologic Understanding of the same thing, etc. etc.
2 + 3 = 5
3
If a new Ontologic Nature of an object is given as a “5”, then this must have a bearing on the Epistemologic Understanding of the same object. If this previous Epistemologic Understanding of the set was given as “3”, and if added to this is the new Ontologic Nature of
“5,” a new Epistemologic Understanding is stated, “8”. This new Epistemologic Understanding can be represented by the equation “3 + 5 = 8.”
5
3 + 5 = 8
This new Epistemologic Understanding of the object (“8”) again changes the Ontologic Nature of the object (“5”) for a new Ontologic Nature (“13”). This change is stated by the equation “5 + 8 = 13.”
5 + 8 = 13
8
This presentation of the Fibonacci Series is central to the possibility of a merger of Ontologic Nature and Epistemologic Understanding. After my conversation with Thad I was pleased that a way had been developed to convey this possibility. My son was not impressed.
Andrew: But how do you get the Fibonacci Series out of this?
Scott: Well, we have a chair to start with, right?
Andrew: OK.
Scott: Well, let’s arbitrarily give the number “1” to the ontologic existence of THE CHAIR.
OntologyEpistemol.
Chair 1
Scott: And then let’s make a mirror image of that chair with our mind, and call this the epistemologic understanding of THE CHAIR, and as such, simply assign it as the number one also.
OntologyEpistemol.
Chair
Knowledge of Chair
1
"1"
Andrew: Why another number one?
Scott: Because the purpose of the number is simply to provide a mirror image of the chair itself. Nothing more, nothing less.
Andrew: So how does this turn into the Fibonacci Series?
Scott: Once it’s conceded that the ontologic existence of something changes with an epistemologic awareness of that thing, we can combine the ontologic and epistemologic “1”s into a single phrase. In other words, once we know about the chair, it is no longer simply a chair. Now it is a Known Chair. This is a different form of ontology, and we can use the phrase
“Known Chair” to be the same as “1 + 1”.
OntologyEpistemol.
Chair
Knowledge of Chair
1
"1"
Known
Chair 1 + "1"
Andrew: But how does this equal the Fibonacci Series?
Scott: But once again, once we have a new epistemology, we have changed the ontology of the chair itself.
Andrew: And so on?
Scott: Yes. Every time there is a change in the ontology, the epistemology must change as well. And every time there is a new epistemology, the ontology is forced to change in turn.
OntologyEpistemol. which are implied, we have the Fibonacci Series.
OntologyEpistemol.
By condensing this series of sums into a pattern we have the Fibonacci series, to wit:
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, etc.
Joining these numbers into fractions in an effort to determining a common ratio, we have:
1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 … 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55
Let the number 1.6180… stand for the relationship between the “Being,” “Non-Being,”
“Existence,” “Opposing Existence” as associated with the merged
“Ontological/Epistemological” end points of the “Image Axis.” This merger states the Third Axiom, the Principle of Consciousness (“Consciousness is always consciousness OF something”). We have then the following construction.14
14 These are the approximate proportions of the Great Pyramid of Giza, as displayed below. At left are the measurements of the Great Pyramid in cubits, and to the right are the proportions suggested by these lengths.
The extent to which the Great Pyramid fulfills the dictates of this philosophy depends upon one’s view of the mathematic structure of the Great Pyramid itself. As to the incorporation of pi into the design see Tompkins (1971:70) “Taylor then discovered that if he divided the perimeter of the Pyramid by twice its height, it gave him a quotient of 3.144, remarkably close to the value of pi, which is computed as 3.14159+. In other words, the height of the Pyramid appeared to be in relation to the perimeter of its base as the radius of a circle is to its circumference.” In accord see DeSalvo (2008:72-73), Skinner (2006:116-119), (Dunn, 1998:59).
As to phi see Tompkins (1971:190) “(T)he Pyramid was designed to incorporate not only the pi